One of the quickest ways to have a court grant summary judgment against the plaintiff in an asbestos exposure case, is the reliance on vague allegations of asbestos exposure with no specific evidence connecting a defendant to the exposure. Sometimes, that may be all that is available. Laurent v. New Orleans City, is one such example. The plaintiff's father contracted mesothelioma caused from occupational asbestos exposure. The plaintiff alleged that the asbestos exposure occurred while his father worked for a City of New Orleans brake tag station, during which the father routinely handled brakes manufactured by BMW, Daimler, an Volkswagen, among others. Roughly six months after the complaint was filed, the defendants moved for summary judgment claiming there was no evidence that any of the defendants manufactured products that were handled in the brake tag station.
Plaintiff did not seek additional discovery before responding to the summary judgment motion, as allowed under procedural rules in certain situations. Instead, the plaintiff claimed that his father dealt with "all types of cars" that went through the station while his father was employed there. The plaintiff couldn't name any other employees of the brake tag station, and unfortunately, the plaintiff's father was not deposed before his death, so there was not even enough base information to begin an investigation as to the source of the asbestos exposure. This likely derailed any effective discovery. As the court also noted, there was a secondary issue over the use of aftermarket parts on the vehicles that went through the station. Even if the plaintiff could have demonstrated that the defendants' vehicles passed through the brake tag station, it would have been mere speculation as to whether the brakes on the vehicles were actually manufactured by the defendants in light of the pervasive use of aftermarket parts. The court quickly disposed of the claims, holding that the plaintiff “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts” in response to a well-supported motion for summary judgment.
There really wasn't enough facts for the court to conclude otherwise, but the case illustrates two important considerations especially pertinent to mesothelioma cases. The most important of which is preserving the testimony of the person who contracted that mesothelioma that was caused from asbestos exposure. It's not to say that the plaintiff in Laurent made any mistakes; his father passed away seven months before the litigation was even filed, so a deposition was not an option. The court's reliance on the lack of a deposition nonetheless demonstrates that whenever possible after the filing of an asbestos exposure case, the deposition must be preserved. If that is an impossibility and in the absence of the decedent's deposition testimony, preserving enough secondary information, such as the names of the father's coworkers, could quite possibly turn the tide in a case. That is something that anyone could do before filing a complaint or even discussing the matter with an attorney. It is unclear whether any of that information would have helped in this particular case, but sometimes the really tough cases provide some beneficial reminders.
